RODRIGUEZ v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL ISSUE; THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS FILE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 8/25/27. 8/28/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd )
Case 5:16-cv-04947-WB Document 9-1 Filed 07/28/17 Page 1of2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AUG 28 2017
KATE BARKMAN, Clerk
No. 16-cv-04947-WB By~
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,
AND NOW this
, 2017, upon careful and
independent consideration of Omar Rodriguez's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc.
No. 2), the Commonwealth's response in opposition (Doc. No. 7), and the Report and
Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret is
APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. Rodriguez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED
with prejudice by separate Judgment, filed contemporaneously with this
Order. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a); Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 12;
3. No certificate of appealability shall issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)
because "the applicant has [not] made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right[,]" under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), since he has not
demonstrated that "reasonable jurists" would find my "assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 262-63 (3d Cir.
Case 5:16-cv-04947-WB Document 9-1 Filed 07/28/17 Page 2 of 2
abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thaler, __ U.S. __,
S. Ct. 641 (2012); and,
4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this file closed.
U.S. District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?